Jury Award in Tobacco Case

* Re “Jury Awards $145 Billion in Landmark Tobacco Case,” July 15: I don’t smoke--never have, never will. I don’t work for the tobacco industry. I don’t particularly like being around smoking. When I was in my early teens (I’m about 50 now), cigarettes were called “cancer sticks.” I was told by many people that athletes don’t smoke because it causes shortness of breath, which I understood to be health-related. So what is it that the tobacco companies hid? I knew cigarettes were addictive. Are the plaintiffs in the case total morons?

The tobacco industry didn’t advertise the health effects. So what? Candy companies don’t advertise that their product will rot your teeth and make you fat, either. If you want to put them out of business--stop smoking.

PATRICK McDONOUGH

Marina del Rey

*

It’s good to hear the momentum has now shifted away from the tobacco companies in the courtroom. If and when Big Tobacco finally pays up, most of the money should go to the states to pay for the health care-related costs. Only a small amount should go directly to the smokers and even then only to those who are sick in the hospital.

Why? Growing up in the early 1980s, I was fully aware of the dangers of smoking. We even did anti-smoking skits all the way back in elementary school. I was very sad to see so many of my former classmates still decided to start smoking. And that’s what it boils down to: It was their decision to smoke.

Cruel as it may sound, nobody under the age of 40 should receive a penny from the settlements. Pay middle-aged people and senior citizens who started smoking before the warnings were sounded. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions.

SEAN E. WANG

Los Angeles

*

Do the cigarette companies not see the irony in classifying the jury verdict as a “death warrant” for the tobacco industry?

SUSIE SLANINA

Covina